Comment on FR Doc # 2010-22616

Regarding the Amended ARS 49-457 cited in the Limited Disapproval of the Maricopa County 5% plan, does it matter that the statute has yet again been amended in 2009 subsequent to its submittal with the 5% plan? The newly added language in ARS 49-457 Section O states "The regulation of PM-10 particulate emissions produced by regulated agricultural activities is a matter of statewide concern. Accordingly, this section preempts further regulation of regulated agricultural activities by a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state." If a county delegated with authority to control air pollution cannot regulate what is going on within its political boundary, how can attainment be achieved? Depending on another governmental agency, especially in these times of large budget and personnel cuts, to administer this type of rule in another jursidicition is ludicrious. How does this additional language not relax SIP requirements?